Repository navigation
Report conflicts when two sources provide the same path #470
Description
Personal beats team beats base -- that is the point of the layer tree, and with one repository it is never
exercised. With three sources it happens routinely, and a silent win is indistinguishable from a mistake.
Layer precedence is untested today. cmd/writ/scenario_integration_test.go registers only personal,
so no test has ever had two layers to choose between.
Starting material exists. The retired scripts/setup-test-layers.sh simulated three layers with a
deliberate collision -- team's .config/git/ignore shadowing base's -- which is exactly the fixture this
needs. Harvest that shape as a second checked-in fixture beside testdata/personal-repo; do not
resurrect the script, which copied real content out of ~/Workspace/Personal and filtered secrets by
matching four filenames.
Exit: an overridden path is reported, naming the winning source and the ones it shadowed, proved by a
scenario with base, team and personal registered.
Activity
David-Noble-at-work commentedon Sep 7, 2026
Observed 2026-09-07 on Danoble-MBP-A, every deploy since noblefactor-ops#182: four
[△] source collision(s) resolved by layer/specificitylines, one per file that both the base and the personal layer now carry underHome/common/.local/(Declare-BashScript, its man page, its bash and zsh completions). Personal wins each, correctly; the lines repeat because the plan is rebuilt each run and the situation is unchanged until noblefactor-ops#147 Phase 2 removes personal's copies.Open, not ruled: severity. This issue asks that an overridden path be reported naming the winner and the shadowed; it does not say at what level. A personal file shadowing a base file is the normal state of a layered system, so a warning glyph on each one, every run, becomes noise once personal deliberately overrides base content. One shape: routine cross-layer shadowing is narrated as a note (and summarized — "4 paths shadowed by personal,
--verboselists them"), and△is kept for what is actually surprising: a tie within one layer, or a shadowing that flips between runs. The user's reaction to the explanation: "that makes sense." The ruling is theirs.